Tiffen 77GG1 77mm Glimmer Glass 1 Filter

Product Information

More Samples Sony A7III | 28mm | Tiffen Glimmerglass1 Sony A7III | 28mm | Tiffen Glimmerglass1 Sony A7III | 28mm | Tiffen Glimmerglass1 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/0.95 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/0.95 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/0.95 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/2.8 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Sony A7III | Laowa 35mm 0.95 | f/0.95 | K&F Diffusion 1/2 Further Reading Taking pictures in the dark with point light sources in the frame the effect is also similar to what you get when shooting analogue Cinestill 800T film. Feeling is what matters, more than technical perfection. Sometimes ultra-sharpness contributes to that feeling. Sometimes a softness in the image contributes to that feeling. That’s where the Glimmerglass filter comes in. This filter, made by Tiffen, is one of a number of diffusion filters that do not simply “fuzz” the image but do something far more interesting. I bought one in a size to fit the new fast Fuji 50mm f/1.0 and thought it might be worthwhile to shoot this lens, which already has a sort of diffusion look built-in when shot at f/1.0, and to see what the combination would produce.

It’s fine, it’s an interesting look, it just starts to sort of blend after a while. Filmmakers, just like still photographers, tend to be fad followers. The effect of the Glimmerglass filter shows most obviously in the sun-bright portion at the top edge of the image where the white sun suddenly blooms, the white glow spreading out over the leaves and the tree trunk. There is a lowering of contrast—the Glimmerglass image might initially look dull in comparison. I’m not sure if there is a loss if resolution or not—higher contrast can give the illusion of sharpness and lowered contrast thus seems less sharp. One is not better than the other, one desirable, the other not. They are just different possibilities.

Moment Cinebloom 10% is the most extreme filter, it gives the most bloom and the removes the most contrast from hightlights and shadows. Could the lower contrast be useful if you are shooting in high dynamic range situations, I think so. There’s a slight mist in the air here—actual water vapor, not residual smoke from the forest fires—which gives its own diffusion filter effect in the light. This is greatly augmented by the filter, as you can see, creating a glow all across the houses in this small town. It’s worth noting that Glimmerglass comes in several strengths—the one I am using here is the weakest. Even after I introduced the thought that we were looking at sharpness, even after I set the stage, were your first thoughts when you looked at the images about sharpness? Or were they about color, about the ocean, and most of all about the dolphins? I will try to demonstrate some of those digital effects here sometime in the not too far future. Let‘s see how it turns out.

In the filmmaking world you don’t have that same pressure to find the ultimate in sharpness. A moving image is extraordinarily forgiving of what would be unthinkable in still photography. A little unsharpness passes without comment in a movie while the still frame from that image would be cast to the darkroom floor. In the film days it was not uncommon for focus in a motion picture to be off a bit now and then (it’s still not as rare as you might expect). Even big-budget films went to print with misfocused scenes. The Glimmerglass series of filters also has a benefit of sparkling when viewed, which can add reassurance to your talent when shooting beauty; that way you can fully concentrate on the look of your shot." thanks for this nice short review. I don’t like the idea of worsening the optical qualities of a good lens either. But indeed, the achievable looks may be quite nice. I think I’ll give some NiSi filters a try as well. When a light source is overexposed it blooms—it spreads out over the adjacent parts of the image. The diffusion filter strengthens that spreading and here you can see the Moon has bloomed out to many times its original size. In this particular case I find this extreme blooming undesirable although no doubt good use could be made of this effect.If I read it another way, it may be that the model is supposed to see the "Sparkle" in the filter - and that is supposed give the model the added confidence (?) Might be cheaper to just glue some glitter to the front of your camera? But there are situations where doing everything in software isn‘t viable or simply not wanted. First, if you shoot video, it will cause very heavy workloads in post. Second, if you shoot on film…well, that‘s obvious. Third, if you‘re a purist and don‘t want to treat every image in post, or if you try to improve your “analogue” photographic skills. Looking closely at it the filter looks like a lens’ front element that hasn’t been cleaned in a very long time. These filters are supposed to add a bit of glow to bright parts of the picture, similar to lenses with undercorrected spherical aberration. Many of the older fast Leica lenses are famous for this effect.

All the photos are shot with the Fujifilm X-T3 + Fujifilm XF 35mm f2.0 R WR on a tripod. Test #1 – Statue at Vestre Cemetery In each of the image pairs that follow the Glimmerglass image is first, followed by the unfiltered image. But followers have to, by definition, be following and that implies that somebody is out there in front. With diffusion filters that is certainly not me—adapting old lenses to modern cameras is a well-established corner of the photo world and diffusion fits into that same corner as well, although even there it’s sort of a niche, a corner within a corner. Perhaps we can add a bit to that little group—put the Glimmerglass on the fast Fuji 50 and see what happens?The Glimmerglass1 was more to my liking as it really seemed to only affect the parts of the picture it is supposed to and I may keep it for the next time I take pictures at a fair or do automotive photography during the blue hour. Tiffen is indeed a lot better at what it does. No wonder they are quite known in movie scenes. I do have Glimmerglass 2 and it does effect only highlights as well, while retaining sharpness and contrast over all other image parts. The effect is a bit stronger than the glimmer glass 1 that you used. For astrophotography the better way to highlight brighter stars in images may be the use of some of the quite good Samyang lenses which are known to show slightly undercorrected spherical aberration leading to a similar effect while maintaining comparably high contrast and resolution in the whole frame. Earlier we saw flare from the filter and here it is again, though brighter and clearer. And again we see that it is not even—is there something in the flare? And there is—a picture of the Moon. With greatly reduced exposure the details of its surface are clear, the focused light having bounced off the flat filter in some way. There’s a coolness factor here that cannot be denied. It’s a diffusion filter, it goes on the front of the lens. You put it on your super-sharp, modern lens and you make pictures.